Pioneer Nat Resrc v. Paper Allied Indust

United States Court of Appeals
Fifth Circuit
F I L E D
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT May 7, 2003

Charles R. Fulbruge III
Clerk
02-11081
Summary Calendar

PIONEER NATURAL RESOURCES USA, INC.,

Plaintiff-Counter Defendant-Appellee,

VERSUS

PAPER, ALLIED INDUSTRIAL, CHEMICAL AND ENERGY WORKERS
INTERNATIONAL UNION LOCAL 4-487,

Defendant-Counter Claimant-Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court
For the Northern District of Texas

Before JONES, DUHÉ, and CLEMENT, Circuit Judges.

DUHÉ, Circuit Judge:

Pioneer Natural Resources USA, Inc. ("Pioneer") sued the Paper

Allied Industrial Chemical and Energy Workers International Union

Local 4-487 ("the Union") to vacate an arbitration award in favor

of a former employee. The Union counterclaimed, seeking

enforcement of that award as well as two awards affecting two other

former employees; the Union also sought damages caused by Pioneer's

refusal to abide by the awards. On cross-motions for summary

judgment, the district court entered a judgment for the Union

enforcing the arbitration awards, including reinstatement of the
three former employees. Pioneer did not appeal the ruling on

enforceability. After post judgment motions, the court amended the

judgment to limit enforceability of the awards to the period before

the Union was decertified as the collective bargaining

representative for these employees. From the amended final

judgment, the Union appeals. We affirm.

I.

After Pioneer discharged three employees in 1999, the Union

grieved the discharges pursuant to a collective bargaining

agreement ("CBA") and then sought arbitration. Three different

arbitrators in separate proceedings found the discharges

unreasonable and ordered reinstatement.

The district court in 2001 enforced the awards according to

their terms, and ordered reinstatement of the three employees. On

September 18, 2000, however, the Union had been decertified as the

collective bargaining representative at the plant where the three

employees formerly worked.

Pioneer's counsel notified the Union's counsel that she

believed, in view of the earlier termination of the CBA, that

Pioneer could comply with the "reinstatement" portion of the

judgment by modifying its records to reflect that the former

employees were reinstated on the dates set out in the awards and

discharged on September 17, 2000. Thus Pioneer would offer only

back pay for that interim period to satisfy the judgment, and no

actual reinstatement would ensue.

2
 Pioneer moved the court to amend the final judgment to provide

that the awards were not enforceable beyond September 17, 2000.

The Union moved the court to find Pioneer in contempt of the

judgment based on counsel's letter and refusal to reinstate. The

Union also moved to amend the judgment to provide that each of the

employees be made whole by an award of the same benefits the others

had received.

The court denied both of the Union's motions, and granted

Pioneer's motion in part, holding that the CBA terminated on the

date of decertification and holding the awards enforceable only

through the CBA’s termination date. Only the matters addressed in

the post judgment motions are at issue in this appeal.

II.

We generally review a decision on a motion to alter or amend

judgment under Rule 59(e) for abuse of discretion. See Fletcher v.

Apfel, 210 F.3d 510, 512 (5th Cir. 2000); Midland West Corp. v.

FDIC, 911 F.2d 1141, 1145 (5th Cir. 1990). To the extent that a

ruling was a reconsideration of a question of law, however, the

standard of review is de novo. Tyler v. Union Oil Co., 304 F.3d

379, 405 (5th Cir. 2002); Fletcher, 210 F.3d at 512. This Court

reviews a district court's refusal to hold a party in civil

contempt under the abuse of discretion standard. Piggly Wiggly

Clarksville, Inc. v. Mrs. Baird's Bakeries, 177 F.3d 380, 382 (5th

Cir. 1999).

3
 III.

The Union first disputes the district court’s limitation of

the arbitration awards to the period before the Union was

decertified. When the NLRB decertified the Union on September 18,

2000, the CBA automatically terminated by operation of law. See

Sheet Metal Workers’ Int'l Ass'n. Local 206 v. West Coast Sheet

Metal Co., 954 F.2d 1506 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that CBA became

void prospectively as of the decertification of the Union).

Arbitration awards ordering reinstatement and back pay to employees

discharged in violation of a CBA will not be enforced for any

period after the CBA has expired. Miscellaneous Drivers v. VDA

Moving & Storage, Inc., 447 F. Supp. 439, 443 (E.D. Mo. 1978) (back

pay provisions of arbitration award are enforceable through date

the CBA expired); see also International Chem. Workers Union (AFL-

CIO), Local 227 v. BASF Wyandotte Corp., 774 F.2d 43, 46 (2d Cir.

1985) (payment of back pay wages through the date CBA expires has

the practical effect of “reinstating" then re-terminating the

employee).

When the Union was decertified, the employees lost all job

protection under the CBA. With no promise of continued employment,

they could be discharged as at-will employees. See Hospital

Employees, Local 1273 v. Deaton Hosp. & Med. Ctr., 671 F. Supp.

1049, 1051 (D. Md. 1986). Nothing in the CBA could create an

expectation that the employees would continue to enjoy the same

protections beyond the expiration of the contract. See General

4
Warehousemen & Helpers Local 762 v. Standard Brands, Inc., 579 F.2d

1282, 1285 (5th Cir. 1978) (en banc), cert. denied, 441 U.S. 957,

99 S.Ct. 2420, 60 L.Ed.2d 1075 (1979), and cert. denied, 443 U.S.

913, 99 S.Ct. 3103, 61 L.Ed.2d 877 (1979). The court correctly

amended the judgment to enforce the awards only through

September 17, 2000.

IV.

The Union next complains about the district court's omission

of an award for additional relief to the former employees, asking

for “make whole" damages so that each employee would receive the

same benefits the others were awarded.

The district court did not have the authority to modify the

arbitral awards to include relief that a party either could have

asked the arbitrator to award but did not, or that the arbitrator

saw fit not to award. E.g., Gateway Techs., Inc. v. MCI Telecomms.

Corp., 64 F.3d 993, 998 (5th Cir. 1995) (no raising new arguments

in federal court); Kerr-McGee Chem. Corp. v. United Steelworkers,

800 F. Supp. 1405, 1411-12 (N.D. Miss. 1992) (attempt to secure

additional damages over arbitrator’s remedy was unjustified),

aff'd, 988 F.2d 1214 (5th Cir. 1993).1

1
The Union also argues on appeal that the court could have
awarded money damages if it found that Pioneer had no good basis to
refuse to abide by the labor arbitration awards. That ground was
not presented to the district court and cannot be advanced for the
first time on appeal. Lauderdale County School Dist. v. Enterprise
Consol. School Dist., 24 F.3d 671, 687 (5th Cir.), cert. denied,
513 U.S. 988, 115 S.Ct. 484, 130 L.Ed.2d 397 (1994).

5
 We find no legal basis to award additional relief for the

losses allegedly sustained by the former employees. The district

court properly denied the Union's request to so amend the judgment.

V.

The Union moved the district court to hold Pioneer in contempt

for refusing to reinstate the employees. When the motion for

contempt was filed, the judgment enforcing the arbitration award

was subject to reconsideration. On reconsideration, the district

court in fact amended the judgment to reflect that Pioneer's

obligations under the awards extended only through September 17,

2000. To the extent that the Union’s motion pertains to a judgment

that has since been modified, the motion became moot with the

amendment of the judgment.

Nothing in the judgment as amended requires Pioneer to

reinstate the individuals after September 17, 2000, so as to

support a holding that Pioneer’s conduct was contemptuous. See

Piggly Wiggly, 177 F.3d at 382 (requiring, for proof of contempt,

clear and convincing evidence that an order in effect required

“certain conduct” by the respondent and the respondent failed to

comply); United Steelworkers v. Overly Mfg. Co., 438 F. Supp. 922,

927 (W.D. Pa. 1977) (finding no contempt in employer’s refusal to

reinstate employee after expiration of CBA and decertification of

union as collective bargaining agent); see also Miscellaneous

Drivers, 447 F. Supp. at 443 (reinstatement is moot after CBA

expires).

6
 The district court did not abuse its discretion by declining

to find Pioneer in contempt.

Conclusion

Accordingly, the district court's judgment is in all respects

AFFIRMED.

7